All tips will be sent immediately to Scott Dyleski's defense team, headed by attorneys Katherine Hallinan and Sara Zalkin.  Please do not send tips to other websites about Scott as they are not officially endorsed by Scott's defense team nor family.

Case Evidence
Case Documents and Resources

Comment on Zuniga Denial of Habeas Petition October 2011

The Chilling Effect of the Gag Order

Reasonable Doubt and Other Suspects

The Politics of Fear and Demonizing Scott Dyleski

Daniel Horowitz's Bizarre Claims and Untruths

Scott Dyleski is a young man unjustly imprisoned in California for the murder of Pamela Vitale. Pamela Vitale was brutally murdered in her home in Lafayette, California on October 15, 2005. Scott was 16 at the time and lived in a planned community about a mile away in the same Hunsaker Canyon area of Lafayette.

Scott was sentenced to Life Without Parole in September of 2006. He was transferred to San Quentin Prison on his 18th birthday, becoming the youngest inmate in the California prison system at that time. Scott was later moved to Kern Valley State Prison.

Scott was convicted based on very flimsy evidence and lack of an adequate defense. He was assigned a relatively inexperienced Public Defender with limited resources who had to go up against an aggressive, experienced prosecutor with virtually unlimited resources in a case that received prejudicial coverage. However, his defense attorney did not even take advantage of the resources at her disposal nor question and follow-up testimony where she could have. At the least, both Scott Dyleski and Pamela Vitale deserve the justice of an intense investigation and a fair trial.

If you are poor and even if you can afford to pay your own lawyer, there is no way there is enough money to hire the private investigators, pay for independent forensic evidence testing, and hire experts to testify. The system is inequitable as the Prosecution has far more resources at their disposal. Particularly troubling is that a Public Defender typically also does not have as many resources as the Prosecution so there is no option except to raise funds for an adequate defense.

Inadequate Defense + Lack of Money = Injustice

Scott Dyleski

"The reality is that we provide criminal defense for poor people that is vastly inferior to what rich people can afford"

Quote from Norman Lefstein in California Lawyer, May 2010. MR Public Defender: California's Only Elected PD is not afraid to speak his mind about oppressive caseloads. 


Daniel Horowitz's Bizarre Claims and Untruths

Daniel Horowitz has made many bizarre and untrue claims recently that misrepresent the facts and the evidence in this case. 

He has done so in an article to the California Senate, in presentations, and in an interview with The Heritage Foundation. Why is he doing this?

The National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, or NOVJL, has a site called Daniel Horowitz is the President or NOVJL. One quest of Daniel Horowitz  and NOVJL is to down California Senate Bill 9 (CA SB9) on Juvenile Life Without Parole. has a page for Pamela Vitale that contains blantant misrepresentations of the case against Scott Dyleski. NOVJL Daniel
                                  Horowitz untruths

"Before he left the crime scene, Dyleski took a sip from Vitale’s water bottle and washed his knife in the bathtub, leaving behind bloody smears. A black face mask, gloves, shirt and trench coat – which were later found in Dyleski’s duffel bag – were stained with a mixture of his and Vitale’s blood. "

The DNA on the water bottle did not belong to Scott Dyleski.

The cap was removed from the water bottle although it had no blood on it and Vitale's blood was on the water bottle. This is all in the court trial transcripts, was presented at trial, and is not disputed.

Furthermore, the prosecutor and criminalists examined Scott Dyleski's knife. There was no blood on it and they never claimed it matched the knife used on Vitale. The ski mask was Scott's. It was blue, not black, it did not have his blood on it, but some DNA of his that was from sweat. It had some amount of blood on it that was Vitale's but could possibly have been transfer from the bloody glove stuffed in the bag. The ski mask had been stored in an unlocked shed in the back yard where he also stored other articles for camping and skiing.

Vitale's blood was not found on any clothing - shirt, pants, socks, underwear, coat. Her blood was found on one glove, Scott's DNA was NOT on that glove. Someone else's DNA was inside that glove, a male's. This, again, is all in the official court testimony given by forensic experts.

It is disconcerting that a victim's rights group and Daniel Horowitz, do not even care enough about victims of violent crime and justice to be truthful. This same group has claimed that Human Rights Watch fabricated juvenile cases for their report, “When I Die, They'll Send Me Home”.

In her article, Digging Deeper on Teen Killers, Diane Dimond states that she changed her mind after being contacted by "Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, the founder of the National Organization for Victims of Juvenile Lifers, and realized there was more to this issue. She wrote directing me to a scholarly report entitled, 'Adult Time for Adult Crimes' (2009) written by Charles Stimson and Andrew Grossman and released by the Heritage Foundation." Ms. Dimond also states she is a friend of Daniel Horowitz and Mr. Horowitz just happens to also have made a half hour video tape for the the Adult Time Heritage series.

The Heritage Foundation has produced a videotape interview of Daniel Horowitz for its "Adult Time for Adult Crimes" focus (transcript of interview). In that interview, Horowitz makes many claims that are unfounded including Dyleski went into neighbors' houses and got on their computers to steal passwords (most of these claims start about 15:00 minutes into the tape). This is simply not true. No one in court claimed Scott Dyleski broke into anyone's house to get credit card numbers.

Horowitz also claims on the tape that 'we' didn't learn about Dyleski ordering equipment from Karen Schneider's credit card until after Dyleski was captured. I'm not sure who the 'we' is he is talking about. Everyone in the neighborhood knew the day after Vitale was murdered (or before). Karen Schneider had told at least two people about it the day before the murder in addition to her husband. She was given informaton a day before Vitale's murder, by the credit card company, that already identified the IP address of the person using her card, the email linking it to Esther Fielding, the address linking it to Esther Fielding and the fact that a boy called ... that links it automatically to Scott Dyleski, a full day before Vitale was even murdered. Scott Dyleski could have easily been the set up as the patsy for a murder based on that information. The facts are that a police report on the credit card fraud was made the day before Vitale was murdered taken by Det. Henriques, that Doug Schneider called police and talked to them about Dyleski the day after the murder and again the next day, and that the credit card scam was discussed at a neighborhood meeting the day after Vitale was murdered. Those calls were to her nephew and a neighor in Hunsaker Canyon. These are the calls we know of because of public records. It seems likely she would have also called Daniel Horowitz or Pamela Vitale because Karen Schneider already knew their address was mistakenly used as a 'bill to' address. It was never used as any 'ship to' address. Det Henriques was also one of the responding officers at the crime scene - you'd think it would have rung a bell. Daniel Horowitz knew the Lafyette police well enough to have their phone number memorized, yet he and they are claiming no one raised an eyebrow when the credit card fraud report was made on Friday, October 14 by noon with the Horowitz address on it?

Horowitz also claims Dyleski studied to be a serial killer, even claiming he had ‘manuals’ although there is no evidence supporting that claim.  Horowitz goes on to twist the story about Esther Fielding finding a duffle bag in the abandoned van (he calls it a truck though) and that Dyleski had saved bloody clothes as a trophy there. He says that Fielding was too afraid to remove the bag because of a Press Helicopter overhead. Fielding was with Joe Lynch working outside and did look in the van, opening the duffle bag and looking inside. There was nothing suspicious there and there was no bloody mask or glove in the bag. In fact, Fielding asked Dyleski about it shortly after and said maybe he should cean it out, but he seemed unconcerned. She wasn't concerned. Horowitz is telling a story when he says she was afraid of the helicopters and had they not been there the evidence would have been destroyed. She could have certainly gone back later, but didn't. Esther saw the bag on Monday, Scott was arrested on Thurs. Others in the house heard her tell Scott there was a bag in there. It was not secretive.

Horowitz also says ‘we’ believe Dyleski took a pair of Vitale's glasses as a trophy. Really? No one on either side has ever claimed a pair of glasses were missing. Perhaps Mr. Horowitz would like to reveal where that is in the record. This is especially interesting as it seems Mr. Horowitz stated that the only thing missing from the trailer was a pair of his jeans. Evidently both Daniel Horowitz and Judge Zuniga claim it was never proven the bloody glasses carefully placed on the television set at the crime were Vitale's. Why on earth would Daniel Horowitz not want to identify those glasses? He could have had he wanted to. If they weren't hers, were they his? Don't these two take Pamela Vitale's life seriously? Or the trial of a teenager?

Fielding did destroy a notebook of Scott's that had some drawings and stuff in it. It was not something that was evidence of a murder, or as Horowitz spins it and calls it a 'diary'. It “undoubtedly contained his plans for the killing.” Very interesting in light of the manufactured ‘To Do’ list. A list that did not even have Dyleski's fingerprints and that was found months after he was arrested.

CA SB399 is the former incarnation of the JLWOP bill.

Daniel Horowitz, also claimed some untruths and promoted misconceptions in "SB399: Comments to State Senate."

"As I stated before you at the hearing on SB 399, Pamela’s killer not only showed no remorse, he enjoyed his work. (And Judge Zuniga remarked on this point at sentencing).

Not only is he not remorseful, he actively participates in a major website that seeks to prove his innocence and for several years accused me of framing him. (The website sponsor has since apologized in writing) (p 37, Daniel Horowitz, Comments on SB399 to State Senate 10, 2009. "

It looks like Mr. Horowitz has taken down his site now to the point you cannot even find it on But from Google's cache, you could see he was making accusations about others, not just Dyleski:

SB 399 Outlawing LWOP for Killers under 18
State Senator Yee's Criminal Past. By Daniel Horowitz | September 08, 2009 at 10:00 AM EDT | No Comments. Some people have emailed me asking a good question ... - Cached

Horowitz's claim that Dyleski did not show remorse is moot (comments about the judges behavior have already been partially addressed here). You cannot show remorse for a crime you did not commit. Scott is remorseful for any of the other things he has done and has said so to those who write to him. He continues to proclaim his innocence.

Scott has never accused Horowitz of framing him nor did he directly participate in running the website mentioned. Horowitz has no basis for making these claims, yet he repeats again that the website is run with Scott's assistance.

"Her apology followed their hiring of a licensed private investigator with the thousands of dollars they raised to target me.) This website (again, run with his assistance), accused me of committing the crime and claimed that my present wife was part of the killing. My home address was printed along with a detailed map of where to find it (p 37)."

First of all, the address where Vitale's murder was committed has been published thousands of times since Vitale's death. Even  Horowitz's friend, Jay Gaskill -  a Bay Area lawyer - published his address on his blog (not to mention he thoroughly demonized Scott Dyleski on his blog).

" ... but the billing address was 1901 Hunsaker Canyon Road (Vitale and Horowitz). ..."

Maps can easily be accessed via Google or other map sites. Daniel Horowitz himself led a nationally televised tour of the Mansion and property just days after Vitale was murdered on Nancy Grace (referenced above).

Daniel Horowitz has put some of what he knows together into a story that is not true. But why? Whether or not any one associated with that site helped raise money by having the address of or link to a defense fund for Scott, that fund was not run by the owner of that site nor this site. Neither is the current defense fund.

One has to wonder why, if the evidence is so compelling against Scott Dyleski  - why, is Daniel Horowitz lying? Especially such heinous lies further demonizing Scott Dyleski.Maybe Daniel Horowitz should review the evidence in this case, especially in light of evidence now coming to light that could have helped Scott Dyleski had it been revealed way back in 2005 or 2006. While most of Scott's freedoms have been taken away, he still has the right to participate in his own defense, fight for an appeal, hire attorneys, investigators, and forensic experts to search for the truth and we would hope that Daniel Horowitz is not suggesting otherwise.

What I didn’t see was the fact that as she lay there dying but alive, the perpetrator had taken a knife and opened up her belly to remove her organs while she was alive. And when she died, he carved into her back his sign, his symbol, his satanic symbol that he used on his artwork” quoting Daniel Horowitz Victims, Legal Experts Make Case for Life without Parole for Some Juvenile Offenders
by Penny Star, August 19, 2009

"And part of what he did with Pamela. After he tried to carve out her internal organs when she was alive but she died, he then carved into her dead body his art symbol (Daniel Horowitz, Heritage Videtape)."

The testimony presented in court about the wound on Vitale's stomach:

"The stab wound occurred at or shortly after the time of death (Vol 14, Trial Transcript, Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist, testimony)."

There is no testimony or evidence that anyone was trying to remove Vitale's organs. In fact, the wound on Vitale's stomach was 2 3/4 inches in length and 3/4 inches in breadth - it is difficult to fathom anyone would try to remove organs through a wound this size (Official Autopsy, p 10).

Daniel Horowitz on Heritage Videtape: "Yes. A cross with two, a double cross, which from his point of view which sort of a devil type, or a disrespectful symbol towards Christianity."

Scott Dyleski was not and is not into Satanism. This is a scare tactic and meant to inflict fear and hatred. Furthermore, it is questionable as to what the superficial incision on Vitale's back even was and whether it could have even been caused during the struggle or by what tool. There is simply no proof that the superficial incision on her back even looked like the symbol Scott would put on his writings. The incision on Vitale's back looks like an "H".

  Explanation of the symbol and what transpired in court .... Hall Jewett and 'The Hate Strategy'

Daniel Horowitz on Heritage Videtape: "I testified at the Senate against it. And I pointed out that the Human Rights Watch stories were fake. That any lawyer would know that the stories of kids who went along with crimes and didn't really intend to kill anybody, actually wanted to stop their friends from doing violence, so were there almost as, like, proctors, or, you know, security guys, so that it was a robbery they didn’t go wrong, then that life without parole, where the actual killers got to go home, you know, with a minimum sentence. I mean nonsensical stories."

In fact, on that same tape, Daniel Horowitz can't even tell the truth about Scott Dyleski's age when he was arrested. He was 16, not 17. Why can't he say that.

Daniel Horowitz on Heritage Videtape: "I’m Dan Horowitz, I’m a criminal defense attorney, and in this context I’m also the husband of a woman who was brutally murdered by a 17-year-old."

Daniel Horowitz on Heritage Videtape: "And even though she was 51, 52 actually, and he was 17, she fought him"

Scott Dyleski was 16 when Pamela Vitale was murdered and pushing the envelope for whatever reason or claiming  he was nearly 17 does not change that fact.

To make it clear to others -while Horowitz and those who support him advocate children being tried as adults, Scott Dyelski's claim has always been one of innocence not lessening his sentence. His major claim is not that he wants a reduced sentence or is involved with the JLWOP laws. Scott should not be treated as a footbal in the JLWOP efforts nor is it fair game to lie about the facts presented in court as Daniel Horowitz, a member of the California State Bar, has done and by his own account is a victim.

On his Wikipedia Talk page, Daniel Horowitz claims that Scott Dyleski's supporters "butcher my Wikipedia listings so that it becomes very clear that they are deliberately attempting to incite violence." Mr. Horowitz himself attacks one person editing Scott Dyleski's wiki page as making "changes that were not accurate and favored the killer." One of those changes he complained about, after saying "She also doesn't really know what the evidence is or what happened at the trial. As many of you know, I was there every minute of the preliminary hearing and trial. Daniel", is that Scott's sister, Denika, who died in a car accident did not live with Esther Fielding and Scott. Esther Fielding was not Denika's mother. And, Daniel Horowitz objected to removing a false comment about Scott Dyleksi carving a symbol on Vitale's back while she was alive.

Daniel Horowitz must feel that since Scott Dyleski was convicted, facts no longer matter. Surely Mr. Horowitz understands there are many wrongful convictions in the United States and prisoners have the right to bring forth information that was not presented at their trial and in their defense.

But is it Daniel Horowitz who is doing the very thing he claims of others?

Perhaps there is a continuing pattern in Daniel Horowitz's claims as he likens any one individual or group to Hitler/Nazis - included in his work on JLWOP, for Michael Savage, against CAIR. Horowitz also has made another undocumented claim, that Michael Savage received death threats ...

The court filing gave no details, but in a telephone interview Horowitz said the factors included an alleged phone threat to Savage. Horowitz said he wasn't accusing the Islamic group of making threats, but said Savage didn't want to take the risk that the case could inspire a "lone nut" to try to harm his family (ref).

Interesting that Michael Savage's original beef with CAIR was copyright infringement, but it turned into something much bigger. As one poster put it...

Perhaps someone with a legal background can answer this question for me:

In addition to the the free speech issue, Savage's lawsuit accuses CAIR of racketeering and improper use of their tax status.

Even if true, why is this Savage's concern? Last time I looked, Savage is not employed at either the FBI or the IRS. If CAIR is improperly behaving in those two areas, isn't it the responsibility of those two government agencies to bring CAIR to justice and not a civil lawsuit brought by a radio talk show host?

"Insisting that Savage can prove the Islamic organization engaged in a conspiracy that harmed him financially, Horowitz said the talk show host is reluctantly dismissing the suit because of 'factors arising out of this litigation,' which he did not specify (San Francisco Chronicle, August 2008)."

Attorney From Michael Savage ‘Book Of Hate’ Koran Suit Tapped By Muslim Mafia Authors (Nov 4, 2009)

The Savage suit, filed in 2007 and dismissed in 2008, centered on a radio show in which Savage said Muslims were “screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate” and called the Koran a “hateful little book” and a “document of slavery.” After CAIR posted excerpts of the program and organized an advertisers’ boycott, Savage, represented by Horowitz, sued, charging copyright infringement and racketeering...

... It turns out the amended complaint in the Savage case, Horowitz tells us, was the basis for “about two thirds of the Muslim Mafia book.” He said he did not know the Gaubatzs until they reached out to him a few days ago after CAIR filed its suit.

Asked about CAIR’s promises of further legal action, Horowitz says he can only hope.

"My ultimate dream would be to fully litigate the question of who CAIR is and whether what they do is legal or not legal. It would be like being invited into the ring in the heavyweight championship bout knowing you can win.”

  This site was made by a friend of Scott's

all original content is copyrighted by Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

artwork entitled, "Earth LIfe Sun", in the background is by Jean-Francois Colonna, Ecole Polytechnique, France